On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvids...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:35, Kris Kowal <kris.ko...@cixar.com> wrote: >> >> Another thing that Ihab clarified which merits a full >> section on the wiki is the dynamic scoping of lexical module >> names. > > This is a common misconception. Simple modules is using static lexical > scoping, not dynamic scoping. The thing that might be confusing is that the > loaded module is defined in the lexical scope of the module that loaded it.
Reviewing the idea, it's certainly not dynamic scoping. If you're very free with the analogy to a function call as established by the syntax, I recklessly intuited that there's a case for it sharing the analyzability problem that dynamic scoping causes, but I have not found such a case. However, you cannot statically observe a reference error on a single script in isolation; you need to know the lexical scope in which it has been loaded. I don't think that's necessarily a problem. It's certainly the same case with any situation where successive script tags have access to the modules declared by previous scripts. Kris Kowal (For anyone observing the political mess I've made, I do plan to do a write-up redacting my claim that Simple Modules can't be used to compose independently designed scripts. I think this is the big issue and I'm glad this design has a solution. I'll continue to ponder the implications for CommonJS and see if I can come up with a migration story that makes sense.) _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
